Archive

Regular readers know that I have written many posts about the intersection of racism and dating. In fact, that is why entire series such as Why Escorts are Always a Better Deal than Relationships or Marriage, Escorts are a better deal than ‘real’ women and How to Use Escorts exist in the first place. But what does any of this have to do with the intersection between racism and feminism? Well.. for starters, systemic racism by women in western countries is the main reason behind their vastly differing rates of having “unpaid” sex with men of various racial groups. However, as you will soon see, it goes much further than that and in ways you probably never appreciated. Let me start by asking you a simple question: Why is Feminism as we understand it today, in all its forms, largely restricted to Anglo, and perhaps Scandinavian, countries. Odd, isn’t it?

At this point, some of you might try to counter my suggestion that feminism is largely an Anglo and Scandinavian phenomena by pointing out that almost every single country in the world seems to, nowadays, have equal legal rights for men and women. And I do not disagree that the majority of countries today do have laws and, in many cases socio-economic systems, which do a good or at least decent job of treating men and women equally. Notice something peculiar about the wording of previous two sentences? See.. ensuring legal equality of the sexes is not the same as feminism- which is really about white women gaining primacy over all other men. While feminism did come into existence, as a movement, to ostensibly ensure that women were legally equal to men- that was never its initial nor ultimate goal.

To better understand what I am going to talk about, let me ask you another seemingly unrelated question. How many male admirers will post comments on Instagram shots of an attractive woman in a thong bikini if she was from Germany, Spain, Brazil versus if she was from USA or UK? In my experience, there are between 10-40 times more positive comments from guys if the women in question is from Anglo countries than if she was from non-Anglo countries. And this has nothing to do with the degree of Instagram use in those countries. You can see the same pattern on social media networks more popular in non-Anglo countries than their Anglo counterparts. Leaving worshipful comments in response to photos of attractive women is just not that common outside the Anglosphere. But why is that so? What is going on?

Here is something else to think about.. Let’s say a woman accuses some guy of date rape (he said, she said situation). What percentage of men not related to accuser will unconditionally believe her story in countries such as Germany, France and Italy versus USA? Why is it far higher in USA than in non-Anglo countries? What makes men in Anglo countries far more willing and eager to go along with any bullshit a white woman will say than their counterparts in other countries? Note that women in developed non-Anglo countries are no more (or less) likely to be suffer violence than their counterparts in Anglo countries. Nor are women in those countries likely to be poorer, unhealthier or worse off than their counterparts in Anglo countries- in fact, the converse is more likely. Once again, what is going on?

Then there is the issue of sex, both paid and “unpaid”. Why are white women in non-Anglo countries more likely to have a sexual relationship (than Anglo women) with a non-white guy, given the opportunity? Why are escorts born outside USA, or are early second-generation types from non-Anglo countries far more reasonable and generally way more fun than their Anglo counterparts? Why do people like RooshV and Matt Forney keep saying that women outside North America are far better than those within it? Why are the laws surrounding prostitution in some Anglo countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada more reasonable than those in USA or UK? And what does any of this have to do with the topic of this post?

In case you have not noticed the trend, let me state it explicitly. Male support for feminism in western countries correlates quite well with the size of empire it had or has and whether it was a racial apartheid-based society (USA). That is why Feminism always has, and had, a far bigger presence in countries such as UK and USA than others such as Italy, Germany or even France. That is also why Feminism, SJW-ism and other white women-first movements are bigger in USA and UK than ex-colonies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Now you know why otherwise rich western countries such as Netherlands and Switzerland have far fewer vocal feminist activists or public support for such ideas than countries like UK and USA. But why would the size of ex-colonial empires or erstwhile global influence create fertile grounds for Feminism?

It all comes down to the myths people, who get lucky, have to invent for justifying their newly found fortune. In the case of UK, its success at gaining overseas territory during the 19th century was largely due to factors beyond its own control. Whether it was the slow decline of French imperial ambitions after Napoleon or being present at the time of internal civil wars in places such as India and China, they just got lucky. But human being do not like to admit (especially to themselves) that they got lucky. Hence the need to believe that they were, as a race, somehow inherently superior. You can see where this is going.. Also, the empire was mostly staffed by young men who lived in lands with very few white women. That is why inter-racial marriage was pretty common in many older colonies until the early 1800s. However this changed once the empire started consolidating. The new ideology was based on maintaining racial purity.

Placing white women on a pedestal makes sense only if that somehow translates into maintaining racial purity. Colonialism lead to the need for racial purity which lead to pedestalling white women which then lead to Feminism. And that is why a lot of early Feminism were super racist white women who came from either the ruling or bourgeoisie class. That is also why most pre-1960s Feminists had an obsession with maintaining racial purity and the old status quo. Let us now turn to USA aka the country built on theft of land from its original inhabitants, their subsequent genocide and wealth created through race-based slavery. While the USA was not, technically, an extra-territorial empire like UK until the 1890s- this had a lot to do with this being not necessary. Westward expansion through the continent until early 20th century was much easier.

As far as Scandinavian countries are concerned, things took a different route. While they gave up the idea of competing with UK, France and Spain for overseas colonies quite early, they benefited greatly from supporting colonialism through involvement in commercial activity in colonies and the process of colonization. So ya.. that is why systemic racism and Feminism have, historically, been joined at the hip. Feminism can only thrive in countries with a strong previous legacy of pedestalling white women due to a desire of maintaining racial purity. There is, of course, more to this story than Feminism being the end-product of delusions about intrinsic racial superiority. Will explain more in an upcoming post.

One of the many issues on which I strongly disagree with most older non-white people living in the “west” concerns how racism (ambient, casual or specific) should be handled. A large number of these older people, especially from certain countries, seem to believe that accepting overt or not-so-overt racist behavior from the now rapidly aging and declining white populace in western countries is the best default response. These pathetic losers justify such behavior by deluding themselves into believing a number of BS memes such as “this situation won’t change anytime soon”, “it has been always like that” or something along those lines. Some even believe that they kinda deserve it or believe they can get ahead by validating the racist mindset of white idiots.

Luckily, this mental affliction (at least its more severe forms) appears to be largely restricted to non-whites above a certain age. I am sure that some of you will point to the ratio of WMAF to AMWF couples, and we will go into that issue later. But for now, let us focus on how the previous paragraph relates to the topic of this post. In my opinion, it all comes down to a behavior that is especially common among older non-whites and is intimately linked to their willingness to accept racist behavior. More specifically, they do not actively confront self-identifying whites who display such attitudes and behaviors or protest adverse portrayal of non-whites. But why not and what is behind this passivity? And this is where we start getting into more controversial areas.

Let me start this part by asking you a simple question. What motivates people more- the fear of losing what they have or the hope of future gain? If you have read enough history, hopefully from a number of diverse sources, and looked at the world around you- it is obvious that the hope of future gain is a far bigger motivator than fear of loss. Think about it.. slavery (at least the version practiced in Americas) was driven by fear of loss and yet for all its brutality, it could not produce much more than cotton, coffee and sugarcane. Similarly, communist regimes in Eastern Europe collapsed in the late 1980s in spite of them being harsh totalitarian systems because the fear of loss, is at best, temporary. Meanwhile, the communist party of China is still in power largely because it could provide real opportunities for profit and better life for its citizens.

But what does this have to with acceptance of racism by older non-whites who live in western countries? Well.. ask yourself, why would they accept it at the subconscious level? Fear of loss or hope of gain? Clearly, it has always been the later than the former. However, if you posed this question to them, they might tell you it was the former rather than the later. But why? Well.. it comes down to maintaining their internal self-image. Remember that everyone wants to believe that they are good, brave and moral. Acknowledging that they allow racism in the hope of future gain sounds much more sad and pathetic than claiming they do so in fear of loss. It is about maintaining an internal self-image which is at odds with one’s behavior and actions.

Don’t believe me? Look at how many actors of Indian descent (Kal Penn, Kunal Nayyar) have been willing to play brown-face characters in films and TV shows. Have you ever wondered why somebody would degrade themselves by playing such characters? I mean.. nobody is holding a gun to their head to make them play those parts. Nor are they starving and desperate for any source of income, however demeaning it may be. Or take most stand-up comics of Indian descent, who until a couple of years ago, largely focused on the alleged shortcomings of their own ethnic group rather than satirize white culture and behaviors. Long story short, willingness of older non-whites to accept racism has always been driven by hope of gain rather than fear of loss.

But in case you still believe otherwise, let us go through a few specific categories of behavior..

1] Some older non-whites believe that pointing out racism will adversely affect their opportunities for future career advancement. But is that so? Think about it.. do you really expect someone who perceives you as less than human to ever treat you fairly, let alone as an equal? My point is that a racist will always be a totally unreliable employer or highly problematic colleague. Also, racists remain so until they are dead. Furthermore, the transient nature of most jobs today and lack of defined career paths removes any vestigial excuses for tolerating such behavior. To put it another way, there is not much left to lose. Of course, the right way to go about this involves avenues other than reporting it to the subhuman scum who populate HR department of corporations.

3] Now let us take this one step further and imagine a situation where a pathetic non-white who accepted racism was somehow able to translate it into a decent career and partial acceptance by racist whites. How is such an existence any different from that of a pet dog? Sure.. a loser might rationalize this as ‘not that bad’ or something along those lines. But is that really the case? Are you really going to be happy waiting for somebody else to throw a few table scraps of pseudo social acceptance? Are you going to be happy to be with some badly aged, washed out and psychologically damaged white chick? My point is that only stupid losers believe that they have no other choice than being self-hating house slaves who look forward to table scraps and crave acceptance from subhumans who see them as their perpetual inferiors.

Will write next part of this series based on the comments to this post.

A few months ago, in the first part of this series, I wrote about a confluence of factors responsible for very high rates of support for neoliberal ideas and policies among whites in USA during the 1968-2008 era. To make a long story short, white support for neoliberalism (in USA) was largely due to a combination of post-WW2 prosperity, desire for continuing racial discrimination as well as a delusion that people in the ‘rest of the world’ could never catch up with them. As we all know, things did not turn out as expected towards the end of that era- and it has been clearly downhill for them since the early 2000s.

Neoliberalism, did however, spread past the boundaries of USA into other countries- especially those in western Europe. However, most popular accounts of neoliberalism tend to ignore, or give very little attention to, its spread in European countries (other than in UK). But why? Well.. there are some reasons. Firstly, the spread of neoliberalism into the institutions and popular psyche of those countries was never as thorough as in USA. Even today, people in those countries enjoy universal healthcare coverage, a largely functional social safety net, affordable higher education and many other things which CONservative idiots in USA believe to be ‘pipe-dreams’.

So why did neoliberalism spread, albeit in a limited manner, in western Europe? But perhaps more importantly, why was it never able to gain the sort of popular following it achieved in USA (except, maybe in UK)? Why were politicians, elites and capitalists in those countries never able to successfully push for neoliberal changes of the magnitude seen in USA? Why did neoliberalism fail to change the belief systems of a majority in those countries, unlike the USA? How could corporations in those countries remain relevant and profitable without jumping on the Anglo-American neoliberal project? What, exactly, was different over there?

1] The first reason for the relative inability of neoliberalism to spread in Western Europe comes down to a simple, if very unpleasant, fact about the nature of USA as a society and nation-state. Modern west-European nations states, unlike USA, have never been racially segregated societies. Also, unlike USA, they never allowed race-based slavery to occur on their own soil. Consequently, one of the most important boosters for public support of neoliberalism based policies such as shredding the social safety net, job precarization and union busting (in post-WW2 era) never existed in those countries. USA until 1968, in contrast, practiced legalized race-based Apartheid in a form identical to the now defunct pre-1994 state of South Africa.

Now, some of you might say that it has something to do with “racial diversity causing low trust societies”. But was that really the case? Widespread public acceptance of neoliberalism in USA came in the era before large-scale non-white immigration. That is right! The population of USA was somewhere between 85-90% white as late as the early 1980s. Reagan was elected in 1980 by an electorate that was close to 90% white. So why did they vote for him? In case you do not remember, he won because he promised to restore law and order (screw over “uppity” blacks) and make america great- like “it used to be”.

Which brings us to an odd question.. why was a self-identified and dominant (at that time) group making up almost 9/10ths of the population so concerned about the quest for equality by a historically marginalized group making up the other 1/10th? While it is possible to come up with many clever sounding reasons to explain this behavior, the most straightforward, if tasteless, explanation is that a significant percentage of 9/10ths enjoyed screwing over the 1/10th for reasons that had nothing to do with self-interest or money. Maybe they were getting off by screwing more vulnerable people- which leads to the next reason for Europe’s partial immunity to neoliberalism.

2] Most people looking at Europe today forget that it was once a hotbed of nationalism, racism and support for mass murder at a level that makes USA today look tame in comparison. But then WW1, numerous conflicts after WW1 and WW2 happened. While these wars and conflicts killed tens of millions of people in that part of the world, they really cut down the numbers of young CONservative minded men (also known as ‘useful idiots’) in those countries. Many of you might have noticed that the strongest non-rich supporters for neoliberalism in USA are almost always white men of average intelligence and mediocre ability who are delusional enough to believe that they too can become rich by following and defending the rich.

In contrast to that, american casualties in WW1 and WW2 were (sadly) minimal and too many men of a CONservative mindset, average intelligence and mediocre ability were left alive after those wars. It certainly did not help that post-WW2 economic growth and prosperity reinforced their beliefs about things “ought to be”. That is why USA as a society embraced neoliberalism so thoroughly when it was near the peak of its relative prosperity in the 1960s and 1970s. It was easy money, not hard times and non-white immigration, which made white american society embrace neoliberalism. Remember, Reagan was elected as governor of a very prosperous California in the 1960s, before he was elected president in 1980.

Even today, older white voters who grew up during the “good times” in USA are far more likely to vote for republican or establishment democrat candidates (aka neoliberals). The point I am trying to make is that the lack of large-scale casualties in WW2 along with immediate post-WW2 prosperity for even the most average and mediocre cannon-fodder is why neoliberalism took such firm roots in USA. That is also why even larger west-European countries which took heavy casualties in both world wars, such as France and Germany, ended up becoming and remaining more socialistic after WW2.

In the next part of this series, I will share my thoughts on why neoliberalism in European countries took off in the private sector after the late-1980s, but was not able to start dominating it till the early 2000s. Will also write about why UK went neoliberal about a decade earlier, and far more systematically, than neighboring countries.

In my previous post on this topic, I wrote that latent racism and a miscalculation about the social standing of white womanhood in 2017 were major factors contributing to the accusations leveled by that woman against Aziz Ansari. The woman in question would not have dared to make those accusations unless she felt it was possible to get away with making them, given the significant amount of contrary evidence in her own testimony. In some respects, this case is eerily similar to another recent backfire for the ‘MeToo’ and Time’s Up’ movement.

Now, some of you might say that this supports the idea that such claims against more well-known men are not inspired by racism- since Jordan Chariton is white. Well.. I never said that such claims were always due to racism. However, for reasons which I shall go into soon, race played a major role in the claims made by the accuser of Aziz Ansari. To start with, she accused Aziz of sexual assault even though her own account of that event did not support her contention. The woman who accused Jordan Chariton of sexual assault kept on altering her story to the point where later versions of her story clearly contradicted her initial version.

The point I am trying to make is that the woman who accused Jordan Chariton at least tried to change her story to make it sound like a sexual assault. In contrast, the woman who accused Aziz Ansari tried to extend the definition of sexual assault to new and highly problematic levels- specifically withdrawing consent after the encounter was consummated. In case you have not read her original account, it is clear that she never verbally communicated her desire to end the encounter to Aziz. Nor did he force her to participate in an act (such as penetrative sex) when she overtly refused to do so.

In other words, she accused him of sexual assault largely because the encounter failed to live up to her expectations. If that seems too harsh, consider that she by her own accounts went to his apartment on the first date, got naked with him and then engaged in repeated oral sex with him. Perhaps more importantly, she continued the encounter even after her allegedly felt that he was not “listening to her non-verbal communications of distress”. She was therefore a willing and enthusiastic participant in that encounter- when it occurred. So what happened afterwards? Why did she later start representing it as sexual assault, after the fact, rather than a date marred by poor sexual chemistry?

Part of the answer to that question can be found sprinkled throughout her account. To be specific, it is clear that she felt that Aziz did not live up to her sexual expectations after the encounter had started. Now, we can make all kinds of guesses as to why she felt like that- but it is clear that she knew who Aziz was and his general physical attributes before initiating said encounter. I mean.. if she did not want to have sex with short brown-skinned men, she did not have to approach him in the first place and then go on a date with him. And yet, she did all that and more. So why made her change the way she felt about it- after the encounter?

Let me put forth another idea about her motivations- specifically, that she is a ‘starfucker’ or ‘groupie’. I am sure most readers are aware that even pretty ugly men who are famous, or infamous, seem to get inordinate amounts of female sexual attention- which they would not receive if they were not famous. I can bet you that this woman would have given Aziz the time of the day if he had approached her before his entertainment career took off. Yet, after getting his own series on NetFlix and an award or two, it was she who approached and flirted with him.

But what went wrong? Why don’t other groupies (especially of musicians) complain about sexual assault regardless of the quality of sex? What made her answer the solicitation for such a story about Aziz Ansari by that webzine?

Here is what I think happened.. She correctly guessed that having sex with Aziz Ansari was a sure thing given his known preference for white women and his relatively newfound fame. Maybe she wanted it to be another notch on her proverbial ‘celebrity’ bedpost. However the combination of a lack of sexual chemistry between them and the less than enthusiastic reception from her friends after confessing to casual sex with a non-white guy made it necessary for her to reframe that incident as a sexual assault. She got her chance when the webzine that published her account began soliciting for such stories about Aziz Ansari.

She could now try to rewrite her less than stellar sexual encounter with a semi-famous non-white guy as sexual assault- thereby freeing her (in her mind) from any personal agency or role in that encounter. But perhaps, the single most important factor behind her willingness to share her story with that webzine was the following calculation- who would the public support.. an anonymous young white girl or a swarthy non-white man? As it turns out, she miscalculated pretty badly since 2018 is a very different from 1998 or even 2008- when that calculation was last viable.

Change in american society, racial demographics and communication technology over the last two decades have made the tired “wholesome young white girl sexually abused by swarthy non-white guy” shtick fundamentally nonviable. Furthermore, most men and more than a few women seem to have realized that and attempts to legitimize withdrawal of sexual consent after the fact would be highly problematic and quickly thin out most male support for other feminist causes- which is something they cannot afford, at least for now. Might write another part in this series depending on future developments and reader comments.

There seem to be two distinct types of reaction to this story- even within the supposedly “liberal” media-sphere. On one side, you have the more pragmatic people who see that retrospective classification of bad or awkward sex into sexual assault would be disastrous for the long-term success of any worthwhile ‘MeToo’ type moment. On the other side you have more than a few young women fame-seekers.. I mean ‘third-wave feminists’ who are trying to use this incident to get their 15 minutes of fame and perhaps a career upgrade. The second group is, of course, willfully oblivious to the fact almost all male support for any ‘MeToo’ type moment would evaporate very quickly once they see other guys being accused of sexual assault for merely having less than stellar sexual chemistry- especially in the internet age.

What do I think about all this? And why did I wait for a couple of days before writting on a topic which I could have posted about within an hour of that story spreading on Twitter? To make a long story short, I have been through a similar situation many years ago- and yes, everything turned out well for me. But before we go there, let us talk about how the strategies which worked for me then can still be used, perhaps even more effectively, by somebody in Aziz Ansari’s situation. The very short version of what worked for me in such situation is as follows: a] extremely aggressive but plausible counter-allegations against the accuser invoking inherent white racism; b] making anybody involved in adjudicating such a situation tread very lightly for the fear of being exposed as a racist and c] researching and exposing anything said, written or implied by people adjudicating such a matter that shows evidence of even a slight racial bias.

So, here are my thoughts on this alleged scandal. Firstly, I think there is a strong racial component to this story. Some of you might disagree, but my considerable experience over all the years suggests that this particular incident would never have been publicized the way it was if Aziz Ansari was white. Some might say.. ” but, haven’t most of the celebrities shamed by the #MeToo movement been white?”. And my answer to that is- White celebrities exposed by this movement so far like Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Charlie Rose etc did things which are either clearly criminal or were gross abuses of their power to employ the people they are accused of assaulting. Aziz Ansari’s “crime” was that the delusional white girl he hooked up with was not impressed enough by the sexual encounter- though she did (by her own admission) blow him a couple of times on her own free will.

Now tell me, how many white celebrities have been recently accused of sexual assault because the sexual experience was less than stellar (according to the woman). Now I am not saying that such a thing won’t occur in the future, but let us face the obvious.. what are the chances that one of the few semi-famous non-white people in the entertainment industry just so happened to be the first semi-famous person in USA accused of sexual assault by a white women because the sexual experience was not stellar- according to her. While I can certainly go into the theories put forth by other people, as well as my own, on why this delusional racist white women accused Aziz Anasri of sexual assault- let us instead focus on the far more important question. How did we reach the point where a woman can accuse a guy (even if he is non-white) of sexual assault just because the consensual sex was mediocre or awkward?

A simpler way to understand this issue is to consider the conditions under which people will provide false testimony. While some people might lie under oath to escape prosecution, others do it because they think or feel that doing so carries little to no personal downside. For example, accounts of medieval trials of witches and ‘secret jews’ by local authorities or the church are rife with blindingly obvious examples of ludicrous exaggeration, pile-ons by multiple witnesses, exhortations to protect the virtues of white christian women and an otherwise lack of anything which looks like due legal process. Paradoxically, accounts of common civil and criminal trials from the same era or even the same set of judges show far more consideration being given to contemporary evidentiary standards, detailed testimony, punishment for perjury and far greater adherence to something approaching due process. But why? Why were some perpetrators treated so differently from others?

In my opinion, it comes down to who is being accused and who is doing the accusing. To put it another way, an accuser who is a relatively higher position in that society as compared to the accused can typically get way with perjury, lies, bullshit, exaggerations beyond what he or she could get away if the accused was of a higher social station than her. Some of you might protest.. “but Aziz Ansari is a multi-millionaire semi-famous person in the entertainment industry”. And to that, my answer is- the delusional racist woman who accused him of sexual assault is white and still thinks that her relative social station is higher than that of a non-white man such as Ansari- as was the case twenty years ago. As it turns out, she miscalculated badly and her relative social position in relation to someone like Ansari is rather different in 2018 than 1998. But racist idiots will learn no other way.

I will probably write a second post on this topic based on future developments in that story and reader comments.

Many readers of my blog might have noticed a recent rash of articles, in both traditional and online media, about how masculinity is somehow inherently ‘toxic’. In case you haven’t seen them, here is very short list of these hilarious opinion pieces: Funny Link 1, Funny Link 2 and Funny Link 3. I am sure that most have also seen links to other similar and equally hilarious write-ups on that topic in their FaceBook and Twitter newsfeeds. But poking fun at unintentionally comic articles is not the main focus of this post, though many are highly entertaining to read.

Let me, instead, begin by asking you a simple question: since when has masculinity been seen as ‘toxic’ in western countries? Most of you might select a time between say.. 1968 to sometime within the last few years. However, as I shall shortly demonstrate, those dates and the thinking behind selecting them is not based in reality. Masculinity, you see, has always been toxic in the ‘west’ as long as it was the masculinity of non-white men. In case you don’t believe it, have a look at the disproportionate number of black men lynched for alleged sexual ‘crimes’ against white women in the pre-WW2 USA. Or look at how the behavior (sexual and otherwise) of black men is viewed and treated in USA.

You could also look at how the sexuality of men from other non-white groups has been traditionally depicted in books, films, TV shows and other forms of popular entertainment. I mean.. can you think of even one semi-well known film or TV show that depicts east-Asian men as attractive or desirable? What about non-white Mexican men? Or what about men of Indian descent? I can reel of a list of characters within american popular media based around negative stereotypes of non-white men. Somehow, all of these negative stereotypes which border on dehumanization and demonization never caused anything more than a few polite disagreements… because, doing so was considered perfectly acceptable for the previous and now rapidly waning majority- especially white men.

But reality, you see, often displays a sense of bitter irony. Many of the same tropes used to dehumanize non-white men and demonize their sexuality have in recent years been turned at full blast towards white men. Then again, attempts to nurture proverbial poisonous snakes in the hopes that they will bite only ‘other’ people always ends the same way. This process is also generally similar to how western attempts to create civil and ethnic strife in other countries ultimately cause the same within their own borders. Or how the ‘War on Terror’ in other countries becomes the incarceration-surveillance state for those idiots who supported the former. Or how welfare, free trade and free-market “reforms” meant to hurt black people have now fucked over lots of white people too.

Some of you might say that what I written until now is too non-specific. I mean.. which tropes am I talking about? and how do they apply to the current situation?

So here it goes. Consider how ‘non-alpha’ white men (aka the majority) risk getting accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault and even rape if the women in question either does not find them attractive, thinks they are “creepy” or has regrets after the fact. That particular type of demonizing male sexuality in USA started with black men- for reasons that are too obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of american history. As some of you know, talking and flirting with white women and having sex with them resulted in black men being accused of identical ‘crimes’- even if nothing non-consensual had occurred. The fact that most white men are now treated that way is both funny and richly deserved.

Or consider how mere accusations of sexual impropriety are now enough to destroy careers of white men. Or how white women are supposed to be always truthful when they make such accusations. Both tropes trace their origins to what occurred to black and other non-white men in previous eras. It is darkly funny to watch most white men get railroaded the same way as they once did to others. It is also hard to feel sympathy for those who cheered on and participated in such mob behavior under the mistaken belief that they would be never affected by such injustices. I mean.. if public trials based on one-sided accounts were ok when the accused were non-white men, what is wrong with continuing that ‘tradition’ when the accused are white men?

Then there is the issue of many white men now being seen as less than worthy for having sex with women. And once again, this is the extension of a trope which was previously applied to non-white men (especially east-Asian and Indian). Of course, almost everybody else in the ‘west’ was perfectly fine when the men not deemed worthy of having female sexual partners were non-white. As it turns out, that trope also spread far beyond the groups it was originally meant to marginalize. And that is why it is amusing to watch all those mediocre (white) men complaining about being treated as undesirable and less-than-human by white women. Then again, thinking beyond the short-term is rather uncommon in human beings- irrespective of race and ethnicity.

All these articles, which seem to be have been derived from one original post, make a number of incorrect and misleading claims such as: 1] Synthesis of industrial quantities of UDMH is very hard or complex. 2] North Korea is not totally self sufficient in UDMH production. 3] Russia does not use much UDMH for its ICBM or space launch programs nowadays. 4] China is the main source of UDMH used in North Korean IRBM and ICBM programs.

So now let us go through each of the major claims by these posts, one by one.

Firstly, the chemical structure of UDMH is very simple (see below) and routes for its synthesis are remarkably easy and straightforward. One of older process to make it and other simple organic hydrazines on an industrial scale is over 100 years old.. so yes, it was possible to make UDMH on an industrial scale even before WW1. However, this specific compound had little to no industrial use before the development of hypergolic rocket engines in the 1950s. And yes, while it is reasonably toxic and volatile enough to pose hazards if handled carelessly, it is no more problematic to handle on a large scale than highly concentrated inorganic acids or compounds capable of releasing releasing chlorine.

Which brings us to the second claim made by those sensationalist propaganda piece in NYT, namely that North Korea might not be totally self sufficient in UDMH production. As you might have realized by now, large scale synthesis of UDMH is not much involved than any other moderately dangerous industrial chemicals which are nonetheless synthesized by the thousands to millions of tons. North Korea has enough educated and competent people (including process chemists), is extremely willing to provide them enough resources to do their job properly and has more than enough appetite for small accidents. Furthermore, they are highly unlikely to remain dependent on external sources for such an important requirement of their missile program.

The third claim made the sensationalist post in NYT was that UDMH and hypergolic fuels are rarely used by countries other than China. Well.. that is news to me. The fact is that one of two major space launch rockets uses by Russia (aka Proton), all the space launch rockets used by India (PSLV, GSLV-2, GSLV-3) in addition to almost all major space launch rockets used by China use hypergolic fuels in one or more of their large primary stages. In other words, the idea that China is the only major user of hypergolic fueled rockets is utter nonsense. The only reason some countries import UDMH from China has more to do with saving money for small scale usage.

By now, you have probably figured out that the fourth claim made by original article in NYT, namely the China is the major supplier of UDMH to North Korea, is laughably ridiculous. While its is certainly possible that the North Korean chemists who operate facilities for making UDMH might have learned their trade in China, it is laughable to believe that the North Korean government would not do everything in its power to fully indigenize production of UDMH and Dinitrogen tetroxide used to fuel the hypergolic engines in their IRBMs and ICBMs.

The simple fact is that almost all “scholarly” analysis of North Korea missile and nuclear program by western “experts”, so far, has occurred though the lens of racism and orientalism. These sophistic and out-of-touch idiots do not want to believe that non-white countries are capable of technological and scientific achievements. That is, also, why Trump can call for the genocide of North Korean in front of the UN without severe criticism by the corporate MSM in USA. The problem with such attitudes is that they are too divorced from reality to work. Of course, I don’t think that Trump or establishment in USA will learn other than though public failure and humiliation.